Subject:
Re: Documentation Licensing
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
8 Apr 2004 21:35:36 -0000
Message-Id: <20040408213534.GJ22228@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting doug jensen ####@####.####
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 09:48:50PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> > Now, some while later, a second author wishes to create a derivative
> > work reusing material from the GFDLed work, to address a different
> > topic. Unfortunately for him, he finds that the work also includes an
> > invariant section that addresses his topic. That section was off-topic
> > for the first author's work (thus meeting that requirement for invariant
> > status), but sadly topical for the second work -- which means the second
> > author would not be keeping it Secondary, and thus his planned
> > derivative work wouldn't satisfy the first author's terms of usage.
>
> Could you give an example where that, would happen/has happened, as opposed to
> the fact that it could theoretically happen? What I'm wondering about,
> is the practicality of the topic shift.
The example was necessarily speculative; this hasn't come up, in part
because the situation is new, but also because the question of
derivative works from software documentation seldom arises. About the
most we generally see is someone wanting to take over an unmaintained
work, in which case any forkable licence will suffice to ensure that's
possible even without the original author's help.
> On a related note from a personal point of view; I understand why RMS
> continues the quest to ensure that people understand why software must
> be free as in freedom. If we stray very far from the basic guidelines
> of the FSF, we may find ourselves slowly moving back to a proprietary
> model, where everyone is trying to protect their individual contribution
> at the expense of the community. To that end, I believe that everyone
> using GPLed software needs to understand that the free (no cost) part is
> not what is important, but that the free (freedom) part is important.
I've made that argument myself on many occasions, and am sympathetic
with it. The question of tactics remains, of course.
> Isn't that the intent of invariant sections, from the FSF point of view?
Surely that is indeed what Richard has in mind -- at least as to FSF's
use of the licence. (Creations like software licences have a way of
being applied in ways not intended by their authors, and, when that
happens, the intent of the _licence's_ author has no legal weight.)
I was present to see Richard _seething_ visibly at the first LinuxWorld
Conference and Exposition, when an IDG guy bestowed on FSF the "Linus
Torvalds Award". (He replied acidly that it was "like giving the Han
Solo award to the rebel fleet".) He's concerned about FSF and the GNU
Project being written out of history as a needless complication.
So, GFDL is round n in Richard's war to ensure that people notice that
it's all about free-as-in-freedom. And I fully understand where he's
coming from.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore problems in things he and FSF
urge to the public.
> How can the importance of freedom be communicated more effectively? So
> far the general public doesn't seem to be getting it, thus RMS feels the
> need to keep trying to inform them. Rick, I feel certain that you
> understand the importance of the freedom part, do you know of a better
> way to communicate that to everyone, without adding the bloat to the
> license?
So, here's the scenario GFDL is intended to prevent: FSF publishes
gcc with a copy of the GNU Manifesto embedded into the documentation,
and $LARGE_COMPANY republishes the gcc docs without it. By changing the
gcc docs' licence to GFDL and declaring the Manifesto an invariant
section, $LARGE_COMPANY is prevented from (lawfully) performing that
dastardly deed.
Frankly, the way the community would deal with that excision is well
known and documented. It doesn't require force of law. It's done
through the firm getting a bad reputation from its deed, and a barrage
of irritated e-mails from customers and others until it cleans up its
act -- or becomes reconciled to its niche as a social outcast.
After all, the lion's share of enforcement is already done that way,
even in cases where there's actual violation of copyright law: It's
almost never necessary to seek enforcement in court, but rather though
the court of public relations.
Few companies -- or significant groups -- want to be classified as
antisocial jerks, so I see GFDL's enforcement mechanism as a solution in
search of a problem.
--
Cheers, No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message.
Rick Moen We do concede, though, that a large number of electrons
####@####.#### were terribly inconvenienced.
